14 October 1999
See related IETF statement: http://cryptome.org/ietf-snoop.htm
And FCC rule: http://cryptome.org/fcc101299.txt
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 16:40:43 -0700
From: John Gilmore <gnu@toad.com>
To: declan@well.com
cc: politech@vorlon.mit.edu, gnu@toad.com
Subject: Re: FC: CALEA wiretap law DOES NOT cover the Internet.
Declan, the whole compromise in CALEA when it was first passed, was that it would apply only to basic telecommunications. Wires. And very basic wireless services, when there are no wires to tap.
People anywhere else in the protocol stack don't have a requirement to wiretap. IP and everything built above IP is exempt. Frame Relay and such things are exempt. Modem manufacturers are exempt. Routers are exempt. Boxes that gateway voice phone calls to IP are exempt. If you want to tap those phone calls, you tap the WIRES, not the IP.
If wiring is involved, only the company that runs the wires has the evil rotten requirement to be repulsive police state scabs. If wireless is involved, only the company that runs the transmitters is required by law to be evil.
Voice is being carried over IP today. There is no requirement that the vendors of talk-to-your-buddy-over-the-Internet software -- or of Internet services, rather than software, that offer voice communication -- build in wiretapping to satisfy J. Edgar Freeh. If these services become more popular, or even widespread, Old J. Edgar will have to stir from his moldy grave and buy gear that will decode what they want -- off the wires. Without help from the IETF.
John
PS: It's a very good thing that the honorable Los Angeles Police Department spent the last fifteen years wantonly violating the numerous legal and procedural safeguards that protect US residents from illicit wiretapping. People were starting to believe the FBI when they lied that illicit wiretaps don't ever happen, and certainly not on a mass scale. The LA County Public Defender's office, which provides lawyers for 70% of accused felons in LA, is in the process of getting about 500 convicted people out of jail. The evidence used to convict them came from illegal wiretaps, which were never properly applied for, court-authorized, or reported (either to the defendants or to the public). The corruption went all the way up to the elected District Attorney of Los Angeles, Gil Garcetti. See Deputy Public Defender Kathy Quant's summary article at
http://pd.co.la.ca.us/CACJ.htm
http://pd.co.la.ca.us/
I wonder what smart defense lawyer will find and expose the equivalent high-level corruption at the FBI? I'm sure it exists, or the FBI Director wouldn't be so manic about insisting on ever-increasing wiretap authority with ever-decreasing public visibility.
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 14:01:23 -0400
To: politech@vorlon.mit.edu
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Subject: FC: FBI to IETF: It's time for Internet wiretapping standards
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,31895,00.html
Net Wiretapping: Yes or No?
by Declan McCullagh (declan@wired.com)
10:30 a.m. 13.Oct.99.PDT
The FBI says the Internet's standards
body should craft technology to
facilitate
lawful government surveillance.
A spokesman said Wednesday that
the
bureau supported the
Internet
Engineering Task Force's recent
decision
to debate whether the ability to
wiretap
should be part of future
Internet
standards.
"We think it's a wise and prudent
move,"
said Barry Smith, supervisory
special
agent in the FBI's Digital Telephony
and
Encryption policy unit.
"If court-authorized wiretaps
are
frustrated, effective law enforcement
is
jeopardized, public safety is
jeopardized,
and policymakers are going to have
to
figure out how to rectify the problem."
[...]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology
To subscribe: send a message to majordomo@vorlon.mit.edu with this
text:
subscribe politech
More information is at
http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/